Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Consumer Confidence Rises; Democracy Declines

March 21, 2007: Benjamin Barber explains why consumer culture is bad for humanity copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org Great News!  The good life will soon return to America.  Auspiciously, months before the holiday shopping season began, Americans were told that after more than a year of fiscal recession, or what some have characterized as akin to an economic depression, consumers were optimistic.  The confidence  index and other indicators were much improved.  Manufacturing executives assured the public, the engine that drives the free enterprise system was in a "sustainable recovery mode." In the very near future, products, and people's sense of need, would be fabricated again. Everything will be right with the world, economically.  Few feared the threat that, long ago, Americans had come to accept.   The foundation of a democratic system had eroded in favor of consumption.

Egalitarianism had been so swiftly and subtly replaced by free enterprise, only a small number observed what had occurred.  Mostly, Americans were out in the marketplace, the malls, or in the halls of their homes contemplating what else they might buy.  The Declaration of Independence, the document that calls for equality could not be seen amongst the clutter.  People in this Capitalist country do not necessarily ponder the contradiction.  Satisfied and secure in the belief "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".  The purpose of government is to protect these rights.  No, in the United States there have been and are more important concerns to consider.  

Citizens are certain the central concern is, "How might I retain my right to buy goods and services?"

The oft-heard answer: manufacturing.  American industry and individuals must invent and invest in expansion.  The United States must produce products to sell.  People to serve the needs of purchasers are also indispensable. The need to fabricate an adequate supply, and the staff vital to support it, will increase employment.  Jobs will provide workers with greater purchasing power.  Expenditure will generate profits.  Proceeds provide a gain that can then be invested in manufacturing.  The only missing component in this cycle is perchance the most crucial, promotion.  In America, we, the people, have allowed our selves to be manufactured.  Citizens are no longer the government; they are customers.

Toddlers, teens, twenty, thirty and forty something's are taught just as earlier generations were,  for an industrialized country to thrive consumers must "feel" confident.  An apprehensive public needs to be convinced it is safe and sane to buy.  Thus, patrons are told they can pay later.  No money need be placed down.  Credit can be arranged.  Long-term loans are available, and why not take advantage.  Americans have been given ample confirmation debt will not destroy them or our "democracy."

Besides, banks built empires on binge spending and received billions in bailouts.   The country and Capitalism did not collapse.  The economic crisis was but an ephemeral blip.

Fiscal institutions and  financial advisers assuage Americans; there is bad debt and good debt.  Borrowing has its benefits, a new sofa, a sweet set of wheels, and a sensational home.  Damn democracy, social equality, the homeless persons alongside the road, and those without health care coverage.  Full speed, or better said, a shopping spree is ahead.

As a barrage of information built on the argument, the economy is stable, buyers began to believe.  Indeed, faith in the American free enterprise system was born long ago.

Birth of a Notion 
Adam Smith introduced an idea. "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." Later Economists expanded on and extrapolated from the original theory.  Then, early in the twentieth century,Edward Bernays, the father of Public Relations maximized the maxim, much to the delight of American manufacturers., such as the architect of the assembly line, Henry Ford, and the originator of the premise, "planned obsolescence," Alfred P. Sloan.

Together, this team of 20th century tycoons converted what had been the crawl from a reluctant consumer to a abundantly content and avid trot.  In America, babies were not born, shoppers were.  These gents understood that if companies were to create a commitment to covet, it would take time, talk, and constant titillation.  Consumers are as children.  Advertisers must hold the hand of potential customer and teach them the lessons and language; what you think is only a want is truly a necessity.  

Radio and television broadcasters must also encourage expenditures.  Periodicals must print the message. Peers will surely support Capitalist principles, as will those Representatives who are well financed by free marketers.  "As consumption goes, so goes the American economy."

Economic Expansion Energized 
By Thanksgiving eve, with Black Friday just round the bend, bargain hunters had become sufficiently encouraged.  There were signs that consumers and the Commerce Department were sanguine.  Buoyed by the numbers the Labor Department released, retailers trusted there was reason for holiday cheer. "Unemployment benefits slidto 466,000 last week"  Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slid to 466,000 last week, the lowest in more than a year, from 501,000 the prior week. It was the fourth straight weekly decline and the first time since January that claims dipped below 500,000."

The evidence was in.  U.S. durable goods orders were up in August.  Granted, the government's "cash-for-clunkers" program spurred consumers to spend more on major purchases. Similarly, the $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time homebuyers helped revitalize housing sales.  Nevertheless, what truly drove the American people was manufactured and purchased long ago.  Citizens are nothing but customers. The American people have come to resign themselves to a manufactured reality.  Government is not of, by, or for the people; it is the rival.  Today, the population professes, Administrations do not protect our rights.  The public protests, imposed rules and regulations deny the common folk the birthright to acquire.

History; Democracy on the Decline 
It all began back in the day, in 1776, to be specific.   Not only did the acclaimed Adam Smith present his political economic essays in The Wealth of Nations the American Declaration of Independence was signed, sealed, and delivered.  Author Adam Smith, the oft-acclaimed engineer of a free market system, or more fully his followers, gave birth to a notion that self-interest is a superior mission.   Hence, whilst our forefathers worked to give birth to a democratic nation, one in which egalitarian principles are prominent, those who espouse entrepreneurial ethics endeavored to ensure that free enterprise ruled.

Indeed, tis true; Adam Smith advocated for independent thought and deed.  He, however, was also a believer in the greater good.  He understood and advanced a need for government.  Yet, free-trade Economists such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, as well as tempter Edward Bernays, and tycoons Henry Ford, and Alfred P. Sloan promoted for a further cultural shift. Businesses must manufacturer consumers, and so they did.

Purveyors pursued the public.  People were persuaded to purchase.  The American populace became nothing but pawns.  The common folk are not forced to buy; they are only constantly coaxed to believe wants are needs.  Equal representation and freedom to choose has been converted to Capitalism.  Adult have been infantilized.  Mature Moms, Dads, men, and women say, "Give me.  Give me.  Give me."

Shoppers Succumb. Economic Strength Expands Again 
Buyers trust; they can have all they want.  Prosperity was the dream, the undertaking, and indeed, in American, affluence is the way of life.  We ponder it, produce it, and protect policies that will promote it.

Educated elders, Economists, and elected officials expound; if businesses are bestowed with the freedom to bring in new revenue, bliss will be ours today, tomorrow, and for time in eternity.

Wealth will be shared equally amongst all our citizens, or at least the opportunity to acquire; to aspire, to ascend, towards the American Dream will be possible.  We only need to begin to buy again.  Economic experts, just as everyday commoners trust in the Capitalist system of consumption, and why not.  In this country the constant refrain is "Capitalism is the worst economic system  . . . except for all the others that have been tried."

With this thought in mind, it is easy to ignore history.  We need not reflect upon the seventeen recessions and world crisis' since The Great Depression.  In this North American continent, forever, we have faith; we are constantly "turning a corner?"  Perhaps we are.  Americans have moved back to the future.

Back to a Boom and Bust future ' 
'Without regard for the existing recession, nor the threat of a deeper Depression, citizens brush aside the words of woe and warning.  Mindful of the messages massaged by the powerful few, who control the media, the former Vice President Albert Gore observed television covers trivial excess.  In his latest book, The Assault on Reason, Mister Gore acknowledged American democracy "is in danger of being hollowed out," as are the brains of buyers who know what they want.  Good news?

The summer doldrums gave way to greater news.   Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke affirmed there is raison d'être for bliss; "Even though from a technical perspective the recession is very likely over at this point."  

Finally, Americans can muse once, twice, or thrice more; assembly lines with accolades to Henry Ford, will hum again.  The nation's most powerful tool, mass manufacturing, will ensure near full employment. "Planned obsolescence," a tribute to Alfred P. Sloan, will still serve as the old reliable economic engine.  The "need" for newer, better, or the best will bring mighty manufacturers new business. The time to consume is once again upon us.   Indeed, Edward Bernays ensured that the free enterprise Adam Smith advanced, and David Ricardo with assistance from John Start Mills enhanced would create an American culture of coveters..  

Hence, as US Novelist William Faulkner observed  "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."  What was is ever-present in our lives.  

The economic downturn has required Americans to adopt what is difficult for those accustomed to endless shopping sprees to accept, self-control, and a sense of being part of a broader society.  While from appearances, in the near term, it would seem the people have been easily able to reduce spending in truth, consumers lie in wait,hopeful that this recession too shall pass.

Economic Past is Ever Present 
For a short while Americans were given an opportunity to ponder the predicament, people began to save., The electorate believed that economic debt and emotional deficits could no longer be endured.  Fiscal frugality had become the favored fashion in America.  "Reluctance to spend had become the legacy of the recession."  Citizens had said, countless decades of spending in excess of earnings must cease. Protests could be heard; government cannot continue to print more paper to cover corporate creditors arrears.  Our countrymen must no longer rely on credit.

During the height of the fiscal crisis, Americans looked to the country's core value. Social equality, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence, was finally thought to be the more attractive commodity.  However, its appeal was short-lived.  Democracy could not compete with more tangible temptations. Ultimately, citizens, consumers, surrendered to their concrete desires.  

News reports serve to reassure restless shoppers.  Advertisers did as well.  Earlier in the year, whilst mechanized factories stood silent and still, merchants remained hard at work, Businesses continued to manufacturer customers.  Commercials sustained America's shared awareness. "Buy. Buy. Buy!"  The people confidently did.

Capitalism; The Credible Crucible 
Indeed, for the first time since the recession began more businesses planned to hire workers rather than fire employees.  There seemed to be ample reason to hope.  

Some Economists stated there will be strong growth in 2010.  Existing Home Sales in the United States Jumped.  Prices fell. Home Depot announced profits were better than analyst estimates. Luxury retailer, Saks Fifth Avenue, whose clientele was once thought immune to severe recessionary slumps, beat the street.  All around, earnings were surprisingly strong.  Principles planted firmly in Americans collective consciousness assure us we will be fine.  

It is as Adam Smith proclaimed. The notion of the free enterprise system, works. Every individual is led by an invisible hand to achieve do the best of his or her abilities. However, poverty is not necessarily reduced.  Prosperity does not consistently or evenly grow,  Innovation is and is not encouraged' and social and moral progress is evident only for the elite and entrepreneurs.  

What is true, Statistics say one thing, citizens say another.

The numbers may make obvious a need to save.  Nonetheless, consumers covet and cling to the idea that what they want is truly what they need .  Accolades to Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mills, and most assuredly to Henry Ford, Alfred P. Sloan, and the maestro Edward Bernays, the mastermind behind a Century of Self

With thanks to these theorists and tycoons, consumers are happy to ignore Unemployment rates of 10.2 percent of Americans in October.  Certain that the economy will rebound, consumers will  just shop until they drop.

Black Friday, the holiday shopping season will be blissful.  Customers will remain confident and content  All will be right with the world. Capitalism will be stable, secure, and the economic system of free enterprise will endure. Only the underlying principles of Democracy will be lost. What a small price to pay.

References for Recession and Reason . . .' 

• The Great Recession versus the Great Depression, By Paul Krugman.  The New York Times. March 20,2009
• Rapid Declines in Manufacturing Spread Global Anxiety, By Nelson D. Schwartz.  The New York Times. March 19, 2009
• Consumer Confidence Improves in August, Reports The Conference Board.  The Conference Board Incorporated. August 26, 2009
• Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776.  Presented by The Avalon Project.  Yale University.
• As consumption goes, so goes the American economy. ?By L. Josh Bivens.  Economic Policy Institute. March 19, 2008
• Edward Bernays, 'Father of Public Relations' And Leader in Opinion Making, Dies at 103, The New York Times. March 10, 1995
• Consumer, labor data buoy optimism on recovery, By Mark Felsenthal and Richard Leong. Reuters. November 25, 2009
• U.S. Economy: Existing Home Sales Jump as Prices Fall.  Bloomberg. November 23, 2009
• Timeline of 17 Recessions and World Crises Since Great Depression. y Blain Reinkensmeyer.  Stock Trading.
• Saks CEO: Luxury Consumer 'Still a Little Bit Shell-Shocked', By Matt Phillips.  Wall Street Journal. November 17, 2009
• society and the "invisible hand." Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Democracy, Free Enterprise, and Confidence, By William A. Reinsch.  US Department of State.June 11, 2008
• Declaration of Independence.  Archiving Early America.
• Unemployment rate rises to 10.2%,  By Don Lee and Jim Puzzanghera.  The Los Angeles Times. November 7, 2009
• Capitalism's Fault Lines, By Jonathon Rauch.  The New York Times. May 17, 20098
• Home Depot cautious despite profit beat, stock off. Reuters. November 17, 2009
• Saks beats Street with surprise profit.  Reuters. November 17, 2009
• More companies plan to hire rather than cut worker,By Paul Dabvidson.  USA Today.  October 27, 2009
• Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory. By Will Springer.  Heritage and Culture.  January 27, 2005
• David Ricardo and On Liberty. By John Stuart Mill.  P.F. Collier & Son Copyright 1909
• U.S. Economy Began to Grow Again in 3rd Quarter. By Catherine Rampell.  The New York Times.  October 30, 2009
• Turning a Corner?   The New York Times. July 2, 2009
• Whose Recession is Over? Not Obama's.  National Public Radio. October 30, 2009
• The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index ® Bounces Back.  The Conference Board Incorporate. August 25, 2009
• Fed Chief Says Recession Is 'Very Likely Over', By Stephen Labaton.  The New York Times. September 16, 2009
• U.S. durable goods orders seen up in August.  Reuters.  Washington Post. September 25, 2009
• U.S. Economy: Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Drop (Update1), By Timothy R. Homan and Bob Willis.  Bloomberg. September 25, 2009
• Americans Cut Back Sharply on Spending, By Michael Barbaro and Louis Uchitelle.  The New York Times. January 14, 2008
• Henry Ford. Builders and Titans.  Time.
• Dynamic Obsolescence.  West of Laramie.
• Edward Bernays; 1915.  The Museum of Public Relations.
• Century of Self.  British Broadcasting Company.  April - May 2002
• The Basics; Good debt versus bad debt. Submitted by BankRate.  MSNBC Money
• Robert Kiyosaki Good Debt Vs Bad Debt

Capitalism; Dead, Alive, and Broken

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org For but a moment, whilst the Group of 20 [G20] met in London's ancient financial capital, ,"The City," the roars of remorse, could be heard.  Words of woe had been whispered in hushed tones for quite some time.  Scholars spoke of various possibilities on occasion.  Whether Senior Economic Fellows from various think-tanks thought a system to be dead, alive, or near doomed, there was perhaps a bit of agreement.  "I see what you mean.  It is broken," Economist Mark Thoma mused more than a year ago.

The public screamed out in pain for decades; however, few cared about the cries of countless common folks.  Those who argued against principles that place profits before people were easily ignored for they had no power and less influence.  Much to the chagrin of corporate titans, even Economistswarned; this could be the end of Capitalism.  Yet, until early in the day, only weeks ago, no one paid much attention to what has become a customary declaration for everyday workers.  Morning has broken, and Capitalism is shattered as well.  

America adopted and advanced a system that was unsustainable..  More than once, "systemic failures" revealed the folly of free enterprise principles.  Nonetheless, worldwide people were convinced to purchase damaged goods and premises.  Yet, as Journalist Professor, Robert Jensen contends, "most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics" do not want to admit that this is so.

Wanted; Dead or Alive 
The evidence is everywhere.  What was a question rarely uttered, "Is Capitalism Dead?" has become a statement, or perhaps the dream of those who have been severely affected by this most devastating downturn.

Wealthy watch breathlessly as stock markets crash.  Banks fail.  Blue Chip companies crumble.  Foreclosures flourish, and people, those once thoughtprosperous, pour out onto the avenue in search of a job, or some sense of stability.

Perhaps, that is why, average citizens felt a need to break the silence, to speak of the broken Capitalist system.  In the shadow of powerful and prosperous Presidents and Prime Ministers, who gathered together for the G20 Conference, 4,000 demonstrators pleaded, not for pity, but for relief from a fiscal system that requires poverty.  

Frustrated and forlorn by an attitude that fosters further advancement of free market principles, at least in the United Kingdom, dissenters shouted in disgust.  It would not be wise to work within an economic structure that changed the global culture in ways that ultimately brought international institutions down.  

On a fateful day, early in April a young girl in the crowd, Aeyla Windridge pleaded.  I want "the death of Capitalism."  The twelve-year-old spoke to what Heads of State had not for centuries.  "Capitalism isn't in crisis, capitalism is the crisis," so said another activist.  

Recovery, Reinvestment, and Rescue 
Few of the principal players, those who represented the twenty participant countries were willing, or able to acknowledge the free market theory is flawed.  Most of the prominent Heads of State were, and continue to be, content with sanguine assessments.  Up to 85 percent of global gross national product comes from the shores of but a score of countries.  Eighty [80] percent  of world trade comes from these territories.  Americans, who might be thought of as the authors of Capitalism, saw and see no reason to change the status quo, at least not substantially.

Borrow and spend had worked well in the past for the superpower, or so the US government attempted to advocate.  While the President poses this philosophy cannot stand, America must move away "from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest," in the same breath, the Chief Executive who represents the country that gave birth to free enterprise, endorses the framework, just as those who preceded him did. (Please peruse the text What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan)

Capitalism, the Obama Administration states, was not the cause of the planet-wide monetary collapse.  Only greed, excesses, and a lack of regulations brought about the demise of the dollar, and the rate of exchange.  As he addressed other world leaders in attendance at the G20 Conference President Obama conceded, "the crisis began in the United States.  I take responsibility even if I wasn't even president at the time." However, Mister Obama contends all countries must be accountable for this massive macro-breakdown.  America's Chief Executive proposes plans intended to strengthen a Capitalist structure.

In his April 4, 2009 Action to Address to the Global Economic Downturn, President Obama encouraged more regulations in an attempt to expand a consumer-based Capitalist theory.  With little regard for how the American way of life, which the President does not apologize for, cripples common, people throughout the world, Mister Obama declared. 

"(W)e know that the success of America's economy is inextricably linked to that of the global economy. If people in other countries cannot spend, that means they cannot buy the goods we produce here in America,  . . . if we continue to let banks and other financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, that affects institutions here at home as credit dries up, and people can't get loans to buy a home or car, to run a small business or pay for college.

Ultimately, the only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination."

One is reminded of why, in earlier years, no one spoke vociferously of the crisis that is Capitalism.  Ordinary people were busy.  For centuries, regular folks worked day and night only to bring home a nominal paycheck.  Even in prosperous nations, people could barely afford to put food on the table.  People took trivial jobs just to secure shelter.  Millions felt forced to pursue professional paths that offer few rewards.  The only goal for the average Joe and Jane was to stay afloat.  Few have had the time or energy to protest their circumstances, or what the powers-that-be had and have imposed internationally.  Today, and in the past, worldwide economic slavery has sufficed.  That is until now.  

Lest the President and Prime Ministers elsewhere forget, in the States, and abroad, people are out of work.  The promise of an ownership society,where "people, from all walks of life," would open the door of their private residence and say, "Welcome to my home" proved to be but a myth.  The pledge of plump stock portfolios for everyone through Capitalism was a claim never substantiated.  Contrary to the oft-voiced assurances, the American Dream could be achieved anywhere on Earth If people only invested in a free market economy, this current fiscal crisis has shown the world, words were but wishes promoted by the prosperous.

Regardless of how average people are punished by a fiscal formula that requires there be poor people, the current President intends to preserve the Capitalist principles that govern a global economy.  While Mister Obama may not profess a commitment to an "ownership society," he too wishes to encourage people to possess what they cannot afford.  

Broken Beyond Benevolence 
In contrast, more than a few Economists have begun to contemplate the wisdom of a system based on constant consumption.  Experts in monetary movements examine, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. Other statistician who study the social science of fiscal affairs suggest there is ""Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism."  Certainly, no matter the belief, with cause, "Capitalism is under fire."  

William Pfaff, the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history has pondered the depths of a paradigm profoundly broken. Mister Pfaff offers a perspective less limited than the simpler theories often presented by Administrations and Academics.  The  observer of intercontinental issues writes . . . 

The essential question is, what capitalism are we talking about? Since the 1970s, two fundamental changes have been made in the leading (American) model of capitalism.

The first is that the "stakeholder," post-New Deal reformed version of capitalism (in America) that prevailed in the West after World War II was replaced by a new model of corporate purpose and responsibility.

The earlier model said that corporations had a duty to ensure the well-being of employees, and an obligation to the community (chiefly but not exclusively fulfilled through corporate tax payments).

That model has been replaced by one in which corporation managers are responsible for creating short-term "value" for owners, as measured by stock valuation and quarterly dividends.

The practical result has been constant pressure to reduce wages and worker benefits (leading in some cases to theft of pensions and other crimes), and political lobbying and public persuasion to lower the corporate tax contribution to government finance and the public interest.

In short, the system in the advanced countries has been rejigged since the 1960s to take wealth from workers, and from the funding of government, and transfer it to stockholders and corporate executives.

There is ample evidence to support the author's contention.  In 1970, the recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize on Economic Sciences, Milton Friedman, encouraged an emphasis on corporate earnings. A culture that creates a vibrant community, Friedman insisted is counter to "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits"

Decades later, his disciples of sorts, Presidents Ronald Reagan,  George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, each implemented plans that increased earned income for the influential and decreased available dollars for the already disadvantaged.  Policies designed to protect and promote an American entrepreneurial taxonomy, or Capitalistic interests, were proposed as a means to spread democracy.  Planet-wide, people and economic practices were transformed. 

The second change that has taken place is globalization.  The crucial effect of this for society in the advanced countries is that it puts labor into competition with the poorest countries on earth.

We need go no further with what I realize is a very complex matter, other than to note the classical economist David Ricardo's "iron law of wages," which says that in conditions of wage competition and unlimited labor supply, wages will fall to just above subsistence.

There never before has been unlimited labor.  There is now, thanks to globalization - and the process has only begun.

The variance is vast.  Those who have possess so much.  The portion of population that owns little, have far less than even an average individual might imagine.  The wealthy cannot conceive of a life where food might be the most valuable commodity.  A world in which water is worth more than gold seems unthinkable to those who thrive in "civilized" communities,  Yet, this reality may come to towns in a Capitalist country.   Indeed, in some American communities, this truth appears today.

Nonetheless, agreements secured at the G20 summit ensure the adoption of a debt-driven American-style "democracy."  An arrangement, in which all are not created equal, will continue to be the practiced and preferred economic system planet-wide.  People will once again forget assessments presented less than a decade ago. 

Many of the radicals leading the protests may be on the political fringe.  But they have helped to kick-start a profound re-thinking  about globalization among governments, mainstream economists, and corporations that, until recently, was carried on mostly in obscure think tanks and academic seminars.

The reassessment is badly overdue.  In the late 20th century, global capitalism was pushed by leaps in technology, the failure of socialism, and East Asian's seemingly miraculous success.  Now, it's time to get realistic.  the plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused damage to poor nations.  What's more, there's no point denying that multi-nationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human rights abuses as they pursue profits around the globe . . .

(After a ten-year expansion of market capitalism around the world, as of the year 2000) The World Bank figures the number of people living on a $1 a day increased to 1.3 billion, over the past decade.

The extremes of global capitalism are astonishing . . .  If global capitalism's flaws aren't addressed, the backlash could grow more severe.

Indeed, the repercussions have been relentless.  Near a century of consumption, solely for the sake of profits, has weakened the world.  The current fiscal crisis reveals Capitalism was never the cure for what ails the people on this planet.  Persistent poverty, and the threat of increased insolvency, born out of a free enterprise system is an expense few, if any, can afford.  One need only look at the Capitalism and what it has wrought.  Avaricious individuals may acknowledge one reaps what one sows.  Independently, or collectively, as a global community anyone might come to understand, "If my brother is poor, I/we too will suffer.  Ultimately, I/we will pay for the poverty I/we accept."  

Without such a realization, and inspired by the spirit of an individualism that has flourished amongst free-marketers, people may, as President Obama proclaimed.  Worldwide, or here at home, we "want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that [has] been missing."  However, it is not another glorious "morning in America."  Nor is it a beautiful day in most neighborhoods.  Were the clouds to clear, globally people might avow, authentically, there need be an actual new dawn.  It is time to dream of economic structures that have never been.

The majorities in the States, and throughout the globe, are no longer silent.  Common folks have spoken.  Capitalism is broken.  It is not wanted, dead or alive.

Sources for economic and empathetic structures . . . 

• Is Capitalism Dead?  No. By William Galston.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• Is Capitalism Dead?  Maybe. By J.D. Foster.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• Is Capitalism Dead?  Yes. By Alan Reynolds.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• I See What You Mean, It Is Broken, By Mark Thoma.  Economist View.  January 24, 2008
• 'The World As We Know It Is Going Down', By Marc Pitzke.  Spiegel International. September 18, 2008
• Systemic Failure: Capitalism "Lays An Egg," By Stephen Lendman.  SteveLendmanBlog. March 2, 2009
• Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff.  The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
• Is Capitalism Dead?  The Washington Post. October 20, 2008
• Recession Pain, Even in Palm Beach, By David Segal.  The New York Times. April 12, 2009
• Blair: Global economic fallout is nation's major threat.  Cable News Network. February 12, 2009
• The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, By Milton Friedman.  The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970.  Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
• Colorado bank biggest US bank failure of 2009.  AFP. April 10, 2009
• Slump Humbling Blue-Chip Stocks, By Mark Healy.  The New York Times March 6, 2009
• U.S. foreclosure filings rise in February, By Lynn Adler.  Reuters. March 12, 2009
• In Defense of Income Inequality, By Peter Schwatrz.  Capitalism Magazine. March 28, 2009
• Congressional Finance Chair Discusses U.S. Economy. NewsHour.  September 3, 2007
• Disowned by the Ownership Society, By Naomi Klein.  The Nation. January 31, 2008
• The End Of American Capitalism? By Anthony Faiola.  The Washington Post.  October 9, 2008
• The G-20 and the Future of Capitalism - Part I,  By Jeffrey E. Garten.  Yale Global. March 30, 2009
• President Obama's News Conference; Transcript.  The New York Times. March 24, 2009
• Century of Self.
• Story of Stuff.  By Annie Leonard.  The Sustainability Funders and Tides Foundation.
• Address by Governor Ronald Reagan, Installation of President Robert Hill, Chico State College. May 20, 1967
• What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan.  Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College.  November 10, 1977
• 12-Year-Old Protester: 'Death of Capitalism.' By F. Brinley Bruton.  MSNBC News. April 1, 2009
• Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff.  The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
• Global Capitalism,  Can it be made to work better?  By Pete Engardio with Catherine Belton.  Business Week. November 6, 2000
• Obama's G-20 confession: "I take responsibility." By Marc Hujer, Wolfgang Reuter, and Christoph Schwennicke.  Salon. April 7, 2009
• Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address, The White House. Saturday, April 4, 2009
• Globalization: A Reference Handbook, By Justin Ervin, Zachary A. Smith.  2008
• Capiatlism at bay, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not.  The Economist. October 16, 2008
• "Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism," By David Wessel.  Wall Street Journal.  Economist's View. May 10, 2007
• Drinking water costs lots of dollars.  MarketPlace. March 17, 2009
• Analysis: Obama takes 'morning in America' mantle.  Cable News Network.  February 25, 2009
• A Different Sort of Red America, By Tobin Harshaw.  The New York Times. April 10, 2009

Calories Do Not Count. Cellular Considerations Do ©

• Written in Response to those at Daily Kos that thought the earlier post might be lost in the mania of Monday Morning.

Dear reader, you may have read one of my earlier exposés on health, habits, feelings, and fats, “WEIGHT. BALANCING FAT WITH FEELINGS, HABITS WITH HEALTH ©”. Perhaps you saw my missive on soda, “CHILDHOOD OBESITY. ADULT ON-SET DIABETES. OSTEOPOROSIS. SODA ©”. In that piece, I discussed the deleterious effects of simple sugars, caffeine, and carbonation. In many discussions, I spoke of eating and weight. I offered that body image was not the cause of many poor eating programs. These treatises might have caught your attention or not. Nevertheless, in a world where people are obsessed with topics such as these, I offer some more thoughts on the subject.

People ponder, “How many calories might I eat or burn? Will exercise bring me bliss? What is my heart rate, my blood pressure, and how are my Triglycerides? What is my HDL, [High Density lipoproteins] or LDL [Low-density lipoproteins]? Is my glucose level good?” BMI [Body Mass Index] is an important concern, or is it. I contend our weight may not be the issue. Calories are not the contribution that counts, cellular considerations do.

Nevertheless, conversations on health turn to diet and weight is always the issue. Talk of menus, medical issues, and diets always turns to surgery, and medication. Good health seems to be the concern. People want to achieve it, maintain it, or ignore it. For many, loosing excess pounds or gaining them is the solution. They think all ailments are caused by excessive or inadequate weight. I think they are not. Many healthy looking people are not as they seem to be.

Still, diet books sell in mass. Bulky building “nutrients” are also flying off shelves. Manuscripts mimic what experts may state; however, often they propose what is thought to be the contrary. In America, and possibly worldwide, those living in “civilized” societies are consumed with their weight. Individuals count calories, carbs, grams of fat, and points. People flock to join groups looking for support; they try Weight Watchers™ and Jenny Craig™. They descend into a world of trends. The Zone, South Beach, and Atkins diets come to mind. Individuals calculate the numbers. They do so in every office, home, restaurant, and car.

The common consensus remains, thin signifies vigor and vitality, as long as it is not too extreme. Fitness is visible, rather than veiled. For some reason we are convinced, if a person that appears to be in good physical shape, s/he is. We do not look deeply; we focus on the obvious, weight and vitals.

Over the last decades, I too was consumed with the superficial, the diagnosis, and not the cellular forces that guided me. I did not always consider the function of food as much as the taste. There are those that eat only to survive; they too rarely weigh the benefits of their choices.

I thought emotions were my main guide. I ate because I felt sad, happy, scared, or expectant. Even the experts, media, and conventions told me that my eating, weight, and milieu were responsible for what was my life. Numerous persons believe convenience, cost, and accessibility are the decisive factors that influence them.

While these rationalizations, in part, may be true, why we eat, as we do, cannot be easily categorized. Nothing is that simple. Therefore, I propose we must take a comprehensive approach to assessing our food choices and the results of these.

We look at the body and see only the size. Rarely, do we assess the color, texture, and quality of a person’s skin when we are evaluating health. Judgments are often that, appraisals with little information. In the minds of most, outer beauty defines what is within. Even as we scan our own bodies, we rarely look at the characteristics of our nails, teeth, or hair. When considering good health we ignore the clarity of our eyes. We attribute what we do see to outside forces. Few of us think about what is happening within.

For the most part, studying these nuances is not possible. Nails are painted, broken, or bitten. Teeth are capped, bleached, false, or stained. Hair is dyed, fried, or otherwise altered. The glow in one’s eyes, some think, simply fades with age. Age, now that is an interesting topic. Why do we age and do we need to. I myself am experiencing juvenescence.

I offer my beliefs and those that substantiate my experience. In my own life, I have realized that weight was never my problem. Counting calories did not help. Actually, ignoring these and the scale were my answers.

I looked at science, at chemistry, physic, physiology, and psychology. I combined all schools of thoughts and determined what would be my truth. Yours may be different and that is fine. I merely wish to bring possibilities to the table. Please feast along with me, differ, disagree, and discuss. My mind is open to the opportunity.

In my life, there were many food addictions, poor eating habits, and health concerns. All were interrelated. I lived on sugar, transfats, grains, and goodies that were made of these. I stayed away from these at times and; yet, I was always drawn back. I struggled to gain control over my food plan, not my weight. However, they were inextricably tied. Until I realized this, I was lost in a world of confusion, consumption, calories, or chaos.

Finally, I recognized calories and consumption were not the problems; the way my body reacted to the quality of these was. For me, the chemistry of foods, the cellular reactions were more important than the calories or other superficial considerations.

I changed. I exchanged complex carbohydrates for simple sugars. I studied the Glycemic Index so that I might determine how foods were being processed in my body. Were they physically and psychologically fulfilling? Were they acting as fuel and fending off ailments.

I increased my protein while balancing this intake with other nutrients. I chose fats and oils that were healthy and essential. I personally decided against dairy and looked to food that are naturally fortified with calcium. This thought may not be a popular one. I offer it only because it works for me.

Grains and starches, for me, need to be consumed with caution. When I start filling my empty stomach with these, I can easily become bloated. I forget to eat the more nutritious victuals. For me, a wholesome diet is beneficial. Manufactured blends that are now labeled “food,” I think are empty. I know the arguments, time, money, convenience, and comfort. For most people these are all truths. I struggle with none of them; nor do I believe these dictums. I have made my life work, and I eat, as I prefer.

Personally, I think simple sugars are costly. Fast food does not come quickly. The affects of these last a lifetime. It is more convenient for me to eat nourishing foods. I can grab a piece of fruit or a vegetable easily. Preparation, at times, can be nil. As for comfort, ahh, I can only sigh. There is such comfort in not needing extraordinary amounts of medication, if any, in visiting physicians at will and not because of a chronic condition. I trust that healthy food is not the answer for all that ails any of us. However, if we eat well, we can eliminate worries of weight.

In all, I make no recommendations. I only ask you to do your own research. Study your body. Look at more than weight, or the indicators of overall health. Reflect upon the data and then digest how the foods you eat feel within you.

• The New Superfoods, By Anne Underwood. Newsweek October 24, 2005
• Bulking up without 'the juice,' By Jacqueline Stenson MSNBC March 24, 2006
• Getting Thin On A Budget CBS News. May 25, 2004
• How the new diet books measure up, By Nanci Hellmich, USA Today January 4, 2006
• Skinny models 'send unhealthy message By Audrey Gillan. The Guardian. May 31, 2000
• Unhealthy obsession, By Gabriella Boston. The Washington Times. April 9, 2006
• The Effects of Physical Activity On Health and Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Weight-Loss Surgeries Info Ethicon Endo-Surgery 2006
• Common Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss, By Robert B. Saper M.D., M.P.H., David M. Eisenberg, M.D., and Russell S. Phillips, M.D., Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
• Who made America fat? By Julie Flaherty. Tufts Nutrition. Tufts University. Fall 2004

The farmers passed the extra calories onto the food companies in the form of inexpensive raw materials. The food industry prospered by supplying large volumes of low-cost, good-tasting processed food that the American public was very willing to buy. Americans chose and bought their food mainly on taste, convenience and price, rather than on health benefits.

As food producers consolidated into larger corporations, they were able to invest millions in the marketing and promotion of processed foods. Advertising was a good way to reach every available customer. But once there are no more new customers to be found in the United States, the only way to increase sales is to get those customers to eat more.

“In spite of largely saturated markets in all types of processed foods and beverages in recent years, the food industry as a whole continues to grow both in sales and product volumes,” Tillotson wrote in the Annual Review of Nutrition. “This economic paradox of continued growth in spite of apparent market saturation results in the caloric source of much of America’s pandemic obesity.”

Not surprisingly, Economic Research Service data suggest that the average daily calorie intake is 2,700 calories. That is an increase of 530 calories, or 24.5 percent, between 1970 and 2000.

At heart, it is good old-fashioned capitalism, Tillotson acknowledges. “Our stock market demands it,” he said. “They honor the company that has growth and promise.”

• Poor Nutrition and a Sedentary Lifestyle: “The 21st Century Plague”
• High Costs Of Poor Eating Patterns In the United States, By Elizabeth Frazão
• Fat In America By, R. Coleman. The North Texan
• CSPI's Guide to Food Additives, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)

Traditional thinking says it’s our own fault, but University of North Texas [UNT’s] Priscilla Connors says this may not be entirely true. “We certainly have a level of personal responsibility, but it can also be said that we live in a somewhat toxic environment,” says Connors, a nutritionist and assistant professor of hospitality management.

• Prescription for Aging Beautifully, By Dr. Nicholas Perricone. Harpo Productions
• All that rich food is leading to poor health, By Wang Shanshan. China Daily. May 16, 2006

With more money in their pockets, they are now eating food that is higher in quantity and lower in quality, according to some of the country's best nutritionists. "Urban residents are taking in too much fat and too few minerals," said Chen Chunming, nutritionist and former president of the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine in Beijing.

• A Simple Guide To Complex Carbohydrates, By Dale Blumenthal. Hopkins Technology. 2006
• Protein: Moving Closer to Center Stage, Harvard School of Public Health. 2006
• Dietary fats: Know which types to choose, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. 2006
• Healthy Grains, Big Carrot Natural Food Market
• Eating Guidelines to Lower Triglycerides, University of Wisconsin Hospitals. 2004

Simple Sugars
• Sugar, It’s Effects On the Body and Mind The Macrobiotic Guide

Refined sugar contains no fiber, no minerals, no proteins, no fats, no enzymes, and only empty calories. What happens when you eat a refined carbohydrate like sugar? Your body must borrow vital nutrients from healthy cells to metabolize the incomplete food. Calcium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium are taken from various parts of the body to make use of the sugar. Many times, so much calcium is used to neutralize the effects of sugar that the bones become osteoporotic due to the withdrawn calcium.

• Nancy Appleton, PhD, Author of “Lick The Sugar Habit” offers 146 Reasons Why Sugar Is Ruining Your Health. I submit a few of these for your review.

1) Sugar can suppress the immune system.

2) Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in the body.

3) Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.

4) Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.

5) Sugar contributes to the reduction in defense against bacterial infection (infectious diseases).

6) Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function, the more sugar you eat the more elasticity and function you loose.

7) Sugar reduces high-density lipoproteins.

8) Sugar leads to chromium deficiency.

9) Sugar leads to cancer of the ovaries.

10) Sugar causes copper deficiency.

11) Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.

12) Sugar raises the level of a neurotransmitters: dopamine, serotonin, and nor epinephrine.

13) Sugar malabsorption is frequent in patients with functional bowel disease.

14) Sugar contributes to obesity.

15) High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

Why Sugar is Toxic To the Body Nexus

Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been depleted of its life forces, vitamins, and minerals. "What is left consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins, and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that particular plant.

Transfats
• Trans Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease ©, By Alberto Ascherio, Meir J. Stampfer, and Walter C. Willett. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 1999

Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health
Five years ago, evidence was strong that trans fat had deleterious impacts on blood lipids; ensuing studies have confirmed these metabolic findings and strengthened epidemiologic support for an important adverse effect on risk of coronary heart disease.

• “For the sake of health, the food industry must admit oils ain't oils,” The Sydney Morning Herald. May 16, 2006

Trans fat is associated with a long list of serious problems. It increases "bad" LDL cholesterol, just like saturated fats. But it also decreases "good" protective HDL cholesterol (saturated fats increase this one), raises triglyceride levels, and increases blood levels of another harmful fat called Lp(a). Studies show that a 2 per cent increase in kilojoules from trans fats increases the incidence of heart disease by almost 25 per cent.

Trans fat also increases inflammatory reactions within the body - including those associated with diabetes and sudden death from cardiac causes. And many of the adverse effects are greater in those who are overweight, a problem for the majority of Australian adults.

Grains
• Whole Grains By Jane Higdon, Ph.D. 
Linus Pauling Institute. Oregon State University. December 16, 2005

A Possible Frame. Personally, I believe the choice is yours. Study your body.
• Food Guide Pyramid. What Should You Really Eat? Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition. 2006

Immigration. Intertwining Self-Interests and Ignoring Interdependence ©

When discussing immigration it seems that what we in America know is what we ignore. We know we want higher wages. Americans strongly support increasing the income of native-born and naturalized workers. Citizens of this country consider their wages and benefits vital. Those of others in “foreign” lands are not our problem, or possibly, they are a cursory consideration.

Persons residing in the United States want to ensure their quality of life. The general public wants “stuff.” They are proud of their possessions and property. They flaunt these on airwaves and movie screens throughout the world. People in this nation want the others on this Earth to see how good they have it. Americans say, “Look at me. I am so happy and healthy because I have this, that, and the riches that you do not.” People of the USA pose for the cameras and profess, “This is America, the land of the free, home of the brave, and the land of opportunity.” Citizens of this country invite and entice people from afar to come to this great land. Then when immigrants do, [the ugly] Americans says, “Now, go home!”

Americans are offended when those residing in this country without papers crave what citizens have or when they use our services and resources. What happened to hospitality? Hostility replaced it.

Americans once wanted the best, now the most will suffice. Either way, my countrymen do not want to pay for what they purchase. They prefer prices to be lower, while wanting wages higher. Thus, we have Wal-Mart and other fine outsourcers.

The quality of goods and services decreases. Availability increases. Profits do too. Americans are buying more junk. They have to; nothing lasts. Standards are low; craftsmanship is an idea of antiquity. Then, of course, there is built-in obsolescence. This is accepted, even expected. Manufacturers must produce; production provides jobs and profits. For whom, when, where, and how will these affect us all? Americans avoid these questions.

As a nation, we are willing to sacrifice excellence when purchasing commodities. As long as the price is good, we can bathe ourselves in glitter. “Streets paved in gold” is the notion that attracted our ancestors to this country. Current "documented" residents also dream of gold. Thus, they invest in America.

As shareholders, we appreciate the cycle of supply and demand. Free enterprise is our strength. We consider competition good, though we love our Big Box stores. We spend in and support those “shops” that eliminated the prospects of success for Mom-and-Pop stores. We want our companies to make a profit, and we do whatever it takes to ensure that they do. Citizens of the United States shout, “Buy American,” and they do [and don’t!]. Individuals buy the stocks and bonds this nation sells. Products? Well, that is the earlier story. The price counts; we have our priorities!

Americans promote capitalism and the competitive spirit. They hunger for success, however, only their own. Thus, Americans create a scenario that they themselves find disturbing, immigration. The citizenry here is a bundle of contradictions.

When we work to have better and higher wages, greater and grander benefits, we entice persons from poorer nations to come to ours. We also create a deeper divide. The disparate conditions that exist between ourselves and other nations cements what we disdain, flight. Our closest neighbor suffers as we prosper, and we resent them. How dare those from afar, those that have less, want more. Americans can aspire for grandeur; however, that seems to be different . . . in their minds.

When those living “legally” in the USA parade their wares, gloat of achievements, and proudly express “this is the land of opportunity,” people believe. Foreign dwellers think this is a place they can come to, to better their lives. They believe it is possible to achieve the American Dream. US citizens say we want those from distant lands to join us in our prosperity, however, selectively. They must fit our idea of ideal, our profile.

Native born and naturalized American citizens speak of “democracy” and “freedom.” They advocate that they want this for all others. People in the USA recall many of their ancestors came here seeking a religious sanctuary. They know that even in 2006, there are those in other nations that yearn to practice their faith freely. Why would these individual and families not wish to find refuge in a country such as this? Why are we surprised when those that crave a safe haven show up on our shores?

More importantly, why do we Americans not see what we ourselves have created?

I ask America to teach others how to create what all humans desire. I plead with those born in the USA. You know that we are the strongest nation on the planet, act as it. Be powerful enough to offer compassion, physical and emotional support. Understand those that have less are as we, they want more. Recognize that we exist on this globe together and we must work collectively as one. Be democratic, not autocratic; remember internal and external walls and wars are not a solution; they are symptoms of a situation that is not resolved. Let us act on what is true; we as a nation are not isolated. We are interdependent. They need us and we need them. May we please work together as one?

Indulge, yourself. Enjoy Max on immigration . . .
IMMIGRANTS AMONG US

• Solid Growth for U.S. Payrolls, By Joel Havemann, Los Angeles Times. April 8, 2006
• Labor Day Outlook: Low-Wage Workers Want Better Jobs Not More Jobs Yahoo News. Friday September 3, 2004
• Immigrationline.org
• Supreme Court Considers Immigration Cases, Fox News, Associated PressTuesday, October 12, 2004
• Immigrants Benefit American Workers. UC Davis News & Information March 2, 2006
• The land of opportunity, By Lou Dobbs. CNN. September 10, 2004
• Land of Opportunity, By Mortimer B. Zuckerman. US News and World Report. June 20, 2005
• Speeches by Secretary Elaine L.Chao, 2005 States & Nation Policy Summit Agenda. U.S. Department of Labor. Thursday, December 8, 2005
• We Don't Need 'Guest Workers', By Robert J. Samuelson. Washington Post Wednesday, March 22, 2006
• Dramatic Decline In Global Poverty, But Progress Uneven The World Bank Group, April 23, 2004
• To Become an American, By Fareed Zakaria. Newsweek April 3, 2006
• America's Divide, By Arian Campo-Flores. Newsweek. April 10, 2006
• Why Does Immigration Divide America? Institute for International Economics
• Welcome to the Adam Smith Institute
• Lady Liberty Part 2 of 3: Stories of Streets Paved in Gold, Italian Memories, By Cookie Curci. Italiansrus.com
• Supply-and-demand solutions, By David Sirota. San Francisco Chronicle. Sunday, April 9, 2006
• America's Divide, By Arian Campo-Flores. Newsweek. April 10, 2006
• "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" By Hedrick Smith. Frontline. November 16, 2004
• Wal-Mart Collapses U.S. Cities and Towns, By Richard Freeman. Executive Intelligence Review. November 21, 2003
• The New American Dream, By Richard Florida. The Washington Monthly. May 2002
• Religious Freedom in the United States International Coalition for Religious Freedom
• Immigrants and Us, The Nation. April 6, 2006

Immigration Issue . . . Problem and Plan ©

Prologue
The essence of this prologue, while subtlety mentioned in the content, needs to be specified in the foreword. I was reminded of this by a glorious woman from China, A, who commented below. She helped me to acknowledge what I truly believe and deeply know. Anyone that feels forced to think, say, do, feel, or be as another deems best, may follow the lead; however, ultimately, they will resent, rebel, and reject their own choices. This preface may be an example of this.

May I clarify and expand this expose´ by saying . . .We all, worldwide, must be free to choose. We may willingly oblige by some standards, those that bring us a sense of safety or stability. We are likely to abide by regulations that we think “sensible.” For instance, we will “choose” to pause at a stop sign, or at least I thought so until I moved to Florida. We may wear seatbelts. Yet, even these actions are often not executed. Those that consider them beneficial will practice these conventions.

Nevertheless, all people, everywhere, do want the freedom to choose. Humans want to move freely, to be “who” they truly are within, and to better their lives. Governments can suggest. Nevertheless, people decide.

I reluctantly wrote this proposal after feeling amply forced to gratify a friend, to conform, to present a point-by-point solution to the immigration situation. Days of “discussion” preceded this. I was unable to make myself clear. Thus, I offered an agenda.

For me, as an educator, I long ago experienced that when plans are followed in depth and detail they are prohibitive. The imposed practical often restricts productivity, creativity, and true understanding. I believe as children, parents, and individuals, we know this; we feel it, instinctively.

I wish to state, that these specifics are not etched in stone and can only be effective when power returns to the people, the common-folk . . . you, and me. What happens is of our making. We can choose to work together in peace, to grow prosperity, or we can continue as we have for centuries. We can war, rage, rant, resent, and impose ridiculous regulations, those that do not add to the quality of life for all. We can defend and protect our borders. Offensive actions seem to dominate this debate. Authoritarian rule can continue, or we can work together for the common good. Ultimately, what happens or does not is our choice.

Proposal
Such silliness, we as a society are focusing on the symptom. We are ignoring the real problem and proposing plans that address the affects of the illness. Immigration is not the actual issue; equality is. If there were an equal distribution of wealth, resources, people, and benefits, there would be no mass migration to prosperous places. People would be where there want to be, at home, with friends, families, and familiars. If all were equal, movement would be fluid and people would be happily productive. They would be paid fairly, no matter their race, religion, education, or ethnicity.

People are pouncing on me, for I find fault with the proposals they present. I hate to disagree; however, I do. I forever have difficulty with shortsightedness. Build a wall, and tell us, the people in the USA, no one will scale the portico. Raise a fence, and believe that it is impenetrable. Place guards at every station, and think that will solve the problem, such as it is. It has not yet. Tell the constituents that tariffs will work or employer sanctions will settle the situation. Then, look at what is, was, and how these have affected the circumstance.

I believe that we as a civilization must be honest with ourselves. We must recognize that we live in a world. America is no more than a wave in a massive ocean. As long as we pretend to have a plan, and use the same mindset to solve the problem that we had when it began, nothing will change. Physicist, Albert Einstein realized this as did Social Scientist, Abraham Maslow.

We cannot solve our problems with the same mind that created them. - Albert Einstein If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. -Abraham Maslow

Thus, I will share what may not be the conventionally accepted approach; however, I think it may be more successful. When I assess where “practical strategies” have brought us [USA], I think it is time to consider other options.

First, I think that we as nations must agree that this “problem” is an opportunity. It is not a crisis; it is instead, a calling to consciousness. We are a world and we must be united. Competition as it is practiced is counterproductive; we must join in a common cause.

Second, we must agree to set standards that will benefit us all. The people, places, and productivity in every country must be our shared priority.

Specifics need to be outlined and mutually attended to . . .
• Wages must be equivalent in all plants and businesses, globally.
If an American industry travels abroad, seeking a greater labor force, they must pay and provide comparable benefits. Those working in offices here in the USA need to earn and receive as employees do in other countries.
• Businesses must place ethics above profits.
If sanctions are agreed upon and imposed by governments, in unison, then industries must “choose” to honor these.
• Salaries must not be desperate, be they those of management or labor. The proportions between worker and top management compensation needs to be a five-to-one ratio.
• Labor Laws must be uniform and enforced.
• Sensitivity to the environment must be a standard.

This is only a foundation, an opening, or an introduction. I invite you to offer additional suggestions, to further the process.

My hope is that you too will concur; what we have done and are doing is not working. Current proposals differ little from the formulas of the past. I ask that we work together, globally, and create the village that, physically, already exists. Please let us no longer look at ourselves as a separate entity. Lets us brainstorm and begin as one.

You might revel in references . . . Slant and sources vary.
• Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill Yahoo News
• Senate committeesupports overhaulof immigration law, By David Jackson and Kathy Kiely, USA Today. March 27, 2006
• House Votes to Toughen Laws on Immigration, By Jonathan Weisman. Washington Post December 17, 2005
• CEO salaries, bonuses keep rising, by Jake Ulick, CNN/Money
• Invest Globally, Stagnate Locally, By Daniel Gross, New York Times. April 2, 2006
• American Workers' Productivity Grows, Real Wages Stagnate, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO March 3, 2006
• Illegal Immigrants Expanding Footprint, CBS News, March 29, 2006
• Hard Work, Furtive Living: Illegal Immigrants in Japan, By Sharon Noguchi, YaleGlobal. 2 March 2006
• Migrant workers drawn to U.S. by work opportunities, wages, By Alice Mannette. Newsleader.com
• Wages Picture Economic Policy Institute
• Immigration Plans Need a Foreign Policy Component, By Stephen Johnson. Heritage Foundation.. December 19, 2005
• Citizens For Global Solutions
• OneWorld.net
• Industrial Workers of the World
• The world’s best country, By Laza Kekic. The World in 2005
• Amnesty International
• LABOR LAW OBLIGATIONS TO EMPLOYEES
• Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
• Offshore Outsourcing Affects American workers, By Bill Bryant. Wisconsin Technology Network February 18, 2004
• President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program January 7, 2004
• The outsourcing of America’s jobs, By Harry R. Davidson, Ph.D.,FinalCall.com

You might enjoy this recent blog posting . . .
• GOODS OVER PEOPLE?, By Josh Bivens at MaxSpeak

The USA In Our Chevrolet Looks Bad. Ford Did Not Have A Better Idea ©

For years, we have heard General Motor’s executives complain of costs. They say the cost of doing business in America is too high. According to corporate administrators, American laborers insist that employers cover health care expenses. Companies must honor pensions awarded in the past, and then there are those wages, oh, those wages. The management has cried out; they cannot continue do business under these circumstances and still make a profit. General Motor’s bosses plead for understanding and ask their workers to sacrifice their wages and benefits. Even when the laborers comply, it is never enough.

Chief executives at General Motors, and in other American companies, ultimately take control. They cut and cut; overhead must go. Production and producers be damned, the bottom line lies with the shareholders. To boost the numbers corporations have reduced the workforce. They have decreased the dollars paid out for health care. They have eliminated many sick days and are unwilling to provide benefits for families. Now, they are “Offering [a] Buyout Deal to More Than 125,000 Workers.” Though not all news reports mention this, if the employees accept the deal they must forego once expected health benefits.

The New York Times article, G.M. to Offer Buyout Deal to More Than 125,000 Workers, seems to paint a rosier scenario than some other media sources. They quote Robert Betts, president of the U.A.W. local at the Delphi plant in Coopersville, Michichan, as saying “the offers were attractive.” Mr. Betts claims, "If someone is going to give you $35,000 to take your pension, that's good," He continued. "I think a whole lot of people are going to hit the road over this."

“Wonderful” said stockholders; shares of G.M. rose shortly after the news was released. Is the action good; or is it only one more blunder in a longstanding series of shortsighted solutions?

Each time General Motors cut jobs; I wonder where will these people go? How will more unemployed workers add to the economy? Great, the company has less mouths-to-feed, and more money to pour into profits. Yet, the powerbrokers seem to forget, now, with all the unemployed, who but the few affluent will have the money to purchase the products?

I have written on this topic before and published my perspective. [See AS GM GOES. CUTS, THE INEFFECTIVE CURE ©]

I have begun many other essays on the topic, and have yet to complete them. The reason being, writing on General Motors, GM President Rick Wagoner, information on corporations managed in a similar vein, and Chief Executives with comparable philosophical leanings is all consuming. The follies of these frightening powers are overwhelming. There is enough material to pen a dissertation, daily.

A "short" chronology of General Motors "Solutions" will appear at the close of this treatise. Many references will be provided.

Big conglomerates, even small organizations, have focused on superficial solutions; they slice and dice. They make excuses; they see expenses and concentrate on these. Corporate America has lost sight of the best ways to create greater income. It is not “innovation”, as they would like us to believe; it is not the quality of the design. It is “people” that make or break a business. How do we treat people, accommodate their needs, serve them, respect them, build for them, and how do we treat them.

Ford pretends to have a “better idea.” They bank on it, and sing the phrase as a slogan. Yet, they too struggle. General Motors wants us to believe “As GM goes, so goes the country.” Therefore, they want us to invest in GM and its products. However, they do not invest in their own workers. Go into any store, enter any organization, travel into any institution and approach the workers as a client or a consumer. Observe how you are treated.

If you are treated well, very well, ask the employee how they feel about their job? Do they feel as though they have power in the decision making process within this corporation? In most cases, the employee’s answer will be yes. Workers that are respected, reciprocally show reverence to their clientele.

If you as a patron are treated with disdain, you might discover that the staff member feels as though they are only a number, dispensable, a person that merely punches a time clock and is largely ignored.

People mirror their environment. If a laborer is treated with veneration, he or she will do their job with similar regard. This is what General Motors and Ford need to know and act upon.

Enough already with the oft stated need for an innovative design! Cars designed, produced, and maintained by laborers that are treated favorably are what we need. These will sell, work well, and hold their value. A solid and serviceable automobile is a commodity of worth. A sleek design may sell initially; however, the customer will not come back, nor will they recommend the vehicle to friends or family, if owning it is an awful experience.

I have discussed Kaizan and the art of sharing the power. Toyota knows; Toyota grows. When will its “big brother,” GM learn? How many jobs will be cut, plants will close, and buyouts will there be?

• White-Collar GM Workers Brace for More Cuts. By Sholnn Freeman. Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, March 25, 2006
• GM workers facing 'Black Tuesday'. By Jim Mateja and Rick Popely. Chicago Tribune. March 24, 2006,
• G.M. to Offer Buyout Deal to MoreThan 125,000 Workers, By Micheline Maynard and Jeremy W. Peters. New York Times. March 22, 2006
• Time line of GM and Delphi's travails. Detroit Free PressMarch 23, 2006
• The Tragedy of General Motors, By Carol Loomis. CNNMoney.com. February 6, 2006
• GM's big shakeup, By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money. November 21, 2005
• Ford Cutting up to 30,000 Jobs. 6ABC.com. Dearborn, Michigan. January 23, 2006
• GM to cut 25,000 jobs by '08, CNNMoney.com. By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money. June 7, 2005
• GM plans to cut 25,000 jobs in US, BBC. June 7, 2005
• President of General Motors, Rick Wagoner Salary Statistics. Forbes.com
• GMAC Is a Big Soft Spot
In Global Debt Bubble. By Paul Gallagher. Executive Intelligence Review. March 18, 2005
• GM told: Cut every salary, By Michael Ellis. Free Press, Business. January 11, 2006
• Special report: CEO pay 'business as usual. By Gary Strauss and Barbara Hansen, USA TODAY
• Union Offers Details of Health DealWith G.M.. By Danny Hakim and Jeremy W. Peters. The New York Times
• Rising benefits burden. By Ron Scherer. The Christian Science Monitor. June 09, 2005
• GM, Ford May Post April Sales Decline as Toyota Gains (Update1). Bloomberg.comMay 3, 2005
• Thousands protest at GM job cuts. BBC NewsTuesday, 19 October, 2004
• Day of action against GM job cuts, European Industrial Relations Observatory on-line. October 2004
• End of the road for Olds, By Chris Isidore. CNN/Money. December 12, 2000
• "A provision of the union contract allows GM to cut health benefits”. Quinn Klinefelter. Marketplace: News Archives. June 26, 1998
• HITTING THE BRAKES, Online Newshour. PBS. July 14, 1998

Kaizen In Japanese, the definition of Kaizen is "improvement" and particularly, "Continuous Improvement"-- slow, incremental but constant.

For more information and depth . . .
• CSM Worldwide Predicts Toyota Will Become One of America's Big Three by 2009. InternetAutoGuide.com
• "The Toyota Way: A Sociotechnical Learning Organization in Action". By Professor Jeff Liker
• The Toyota Way By Jeffrey Liker. McGraw Hill, 2003

You may wish to consider an economic perspective on corporate practices. Please visit, the Economist View . . .
Capital Gets the Cookies, Labor Gets the Crumbs, By Mark Thoma, featuring Invest Globally, Stagnate Locally, by Daniel Gross, Economic View, NY Times
Invest Globally, Stagnate Locally pdf format

HIP, HIP HOORAY, HEWLETT PACKARD CUTS COST ©

Today, on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, Hewlett Packard did as expected; they announced that they would distribute 14,500 pink slips. The company will reduce one-tenth of its worldwide work force over the next 18 months. HP claims this restructuring plan will result in a $1.9 billion annual savings. Shareholders applaud the decision; employees do not.

The company also made known, as of January 1, 2006, it would no longer contribute to the pension plans of its domestic workers. Oh joy, oh bliss. Newly appointed, company President, Mark V. Hurd is following the lead of other corporate heads. Hurd saw GM Chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner do his dance and he thought he would join the hustle.

President Hurd declares this move will create “a simpler nimbler company.” Schticks are simplistic and shortsighted. Yet, they are the preference of American corporate leaders.

US companies cut cost to garner gains. They do not consider that while there may be short-term increases, in the long run, the global community will suffer. It is people that purchase printers; consumers buy computers. Cars cannot leave the showroom floor without a driver and drivers need cash to claim their vehicle. Without jobs, without income, even without a sense of security, shoppers do not shop.

American firms concentrate on the immediate future, and then, ultimately, they flounder; many fail. Companies dismiss or diminish the importance of their own employees; they cater to Chief Executive officers. It seems, for a time, that these measures are winning strategies. However, they are not. These tactics bring in profits, though these earnings are short lived.

Toyota can claim a business-intelligence that reaps greater rewards. Their corporate culture, kaizen, or the Japanese business philosophy demands an attentiveness that differs from that of American organizations. Kaizen requires obsessive cost controls, relentless thoughtfulness, and equality. Executives are not considered greater than employees; they share. Japanese industrialists care. Rather than cut labor and benefits, they build relationships. Wow, what a concept!

This way of thinking is contrary to that found in American industries. Sharing status, ideas, and revenues is not the American way. Yet, it is the standard in Japan. Businesses such as Toyota are successful; their success is substantial. If only Hewlett Packard, General Motors, IBM, and other American capitalists would consider similar strategies. They too might harvest greater manufacturing health!

AS GM GOES. CUTS, THE INEFFECTIVE CURE ©

Many recall the old adage, “As GM goes, so goes the nation” and General Motors is going, going, and some fear it may soon be gone! General Motors has a habit of cutting costs, jobs, and benefits. Throughout their history this strategy has proven to be ineffective and yet, only weeks ago, they announced that they would continue to do as they have done.

As GM cuts, so too do other American industries and institutions. While investors temporarily profit from this ploy, little else does. Let us look at the legend of this corporate giant, its philosophy, and practices. Then compare and contrast these with those of Toyota. Let us hope that one day, General Motors will do the same.

The decline of General Motors began long ago. During the energy crisis of the 1970s, America changed. GM did not lead the cultural shift, nor did it swing with it, though they may have lead what followed.

The public and foreign industries alike, realized that the Earth could not and would not provide an endless supply of petroleum. Adjustments must be made; dependency on fossil fuels had to stop. Citizens concluded that they could no longer drive gas-guzzling engines; they would prefer economical automobiles. Consciously, people chose smaller cars. Yet, General Motors did not make these. They delayed. Customers went elsewhere.

General Motors acted as though there was ample oil; availability was merely a political ploy. They believed or hoped that consumers would come around. Then, GM would be ready to deliver. GM would ride-out the energy storm, and they did, or so it seemed. Slowly, they realized that times had changed and they needed to change with the times. However, it took this corporate giant time to turn left, right, or even to move straight ahead. Once they did move, they were lumbering. General Motors did not deliver as quickly as other automobile makers did; nor did they deliver as well. [The same could be said of many American industries and institutions.]

Automotive competition came, and stays solid; it was and is mostly from Japan. [In other industries quality competition came from China, Guam, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, anywhere, but from the good ol’ US of A.] The Honda, Nissan, and Toyota combination quickly increased their North American market share. Their products were and are well made and efficient. Their working force was and is dedicated as is evident in the quality of the workmanship. Foreign factories worked well. Sales from these increased; the companies expanded, and so too did their business. Gradually, GM sales declined. General Motors was caught in a downward spiral, the slide continues, even today. The future of GM is uncertain.

We see it and feel it. If we look in our garages and on our streets, we discover that the majority of the automobiles are not “Made in the USA,” or, at least not produced by American companies. [If we peer into our closets, glance into our kitchens, or gaze into any room of our homes, we see the same.] This fact effects economic stability in all of the United States; General Motors, being among the largest, has been hit harder. [American businesses as a whole are experiencing a possible economic depression.]

In April 2005, Americans purchased more than 1.5 million light vehicles. This represents an annual increase of 1.8%. While other automakers were bettering their numbers, GM was crashing. General Motors announced a 7.7% drop in sales. Ford experienced a 5% loss. The two American automotive industry giants were [and are] struggling. In the first quarter, this once powerful mega-manufacturer reported a $1.1 billion loss, a larger shortfall than they have had in the last 13 years. Ford was able to return a net profit of $1.2 billion; however, this too, was a decline. In the previous year, Ford did much better.

Meanwhile, in this same period, the foreign industry fared quite well. While General Motors’ market share fell from 28% to 25.4%, sales for Honda, Nissan, and Toyota combined increased from 24.8% to 29.1%. The contrast was striking. A double-digit deficit from a stalwart, blue chip such as GM raised great doubt among investors. Those banking on General Motors were devastated and those investing in America were equally torn.

The news affected the market as a whole. When the details were released, shareholders sold. The stock market took a dive. More recently, General Motors’ stock was deemed “junk.” This rating served to exasperate a sad situation. An already struggling company began floundering further. They received little support, analysts turned away, buy recommendations were rescinded, and fewer shares of GM stock were purchased. GM was selling fewer cars, less trucks, and now the sale of their stock is stilled.

Now, in June 2005, General Motors is feeling the full effects of their earlier, and ever present single-minded stance. [As are all if not most of our American industries and institutions.] Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said, “If we had a chance to rerun the last five years. We probably would have done a little more thinking about making sure that each product was distinctive and had a chance to be successful.”

Distinctive designs are easy to come by, yet history proves they are not enough; had they been General Motors would not have experienced the decline they did in the 1970s when designs were strong. Those glorious gas-guzzlers of the past were gorgeous; yet, they did not sell well. The recent calamity would have had no effect on General Motors. Some of the petroleum-puffing Sports Utility Vehicles that GM makes today are quite distinctive; nonetheless, they too do not sell. They do not fly off the lots in the way that those of other manufacturers do.

General Motors blames their loss of sales on the cost of their vehicles. The company states that due to the weight of wages, the cost of health care, and expense of pensions they must add an additional cost of $1500 per unit to the price of each product. General Motors wishes to believe that people purchase other products, more specifically Japanese vehicles, because the foreign fares are less. Those that own Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans may differ with this opinion and many do. Nonetheless, this is the GM credo.

The facts tell a different tale. Buyers are looking for quality; cost is only one of many considerations. When one purchases an automobile, they ask of service, reliability, fuel efficiency, and customer care. They also reflect upon personal past experiences, the reputation of the vehicle, and of its maker. There are those that research corporate policies and practices. Cost and design are only surface concerns. A car is a substantial purchase. The price of the vehicle is influential; however, it is not the only consideration. Customers may buy once; however, if not satisfied, will they want to buy again.

General Motors is not the finest; nor has it been for quite some time. Its motor vehicles are not the best made or maintained. Customer service and customer care are not as they once were. Much of this is a reflection of company policies and practices. GM workers are not happiest while working at their craft. For decades, they have been the subjects of reductions. This does not create a sense of security or trust. The threat of losing one’s livelihood or benefits is the doom that hangs over the heads of GM workers. This affects attitudes and attitudes affect the quality of production.

General Motors' automakers are not the best paid; they are not the most secure in their positions, and they know this. They feel it. GM executives continually close plants, reduce benefits, and ask labor to accept further reductions. The workers that General Motors employs are not treated as the treasure that they are.

In contrast, laborers at Toyota are. “Japan’s industrial wages are now among the worlds highest.” A Japanese worker earns 20 to 30 percent more than his, or her, American counterpart does! Though employee wages are high, higher than those of Americans, companies in Japan are thriving. The Japanese workforce is doing quite well. Industry and individuals flourish, more so than those in the United States.

Covering the cost of labor is not the problem, the payments made to Chief Executive officers are. At GM, employees’ pay is nominal in contrast to that of Chief Executive Officer, Rick Wagoner [and those of his ilk.] According to Forbes.com, G. Richard Wagoner Jr. receives a compensation of $8.5 million. General Motors' argues ‘profits are lost because wages are high.’ Whose wages are high?

In America, Chief Executive Officers received a median compensation of $14 million in 2004, 25 percent more than they received in the previous year. CEO’s have salaries, bonuses, incentives, stock awards, stock option gains, and potential returns from fresh option grants. Each brings in a hefty sum. In contrast, employees have few resources beyond their salaries. In 2004, laborers wages increased by 2.5 percent. Considering that typically inflation is calculated at a rate of 3 percent per year, this leaves the rank-and-file further in the hole.

The salary system invoked by the powers that be at General Motors is flawed; it favors the executives and punishes the employees. GM is a microcosm of a structure that dictates separate and unequal. American entrepreneurs’ salaries and gains are expanding while laborers lose wages, benefits, and ultimately, their jobs. Some American workers do thrive, some survive; however, many, if not most struggle.

General Motors is correct; the expense of pay can be problem. It can drain profits; however, workers wages need not be the cause of shareholders concern. The compensation that CEOs receive gives investors reason to grieve.

General Motors also claims health care costs have placed an enormous burden on the company, and they have. In December 2004, President of GM North America, Gary Cower stated, “We spend more for health care than we do on steel. It’s probably the biggest competitive issue we face.” According to the last annual report, $5.2 billion was spent on health insurance costs. GM calls this a “crisis” and it is.

Health care costs are exorbitant; they are draining industries, institutions, and individuals. Larry Johnston, Chief Executive of the supermarket chain Albertsons spoke of the nation’s health care crisis, and how it affects all American businesses. Johnston said, “It’s frightening what this [health care cost crisis] could do to our country,” Johnston portends that “spiraling health care costs, if unchecked, would bankrupt the nation.”

Currently, health care costs in the United States are equal to almost 15% of our Gross Domestic Product. With the advent of the Medicare prescription drug program, increases will be greater. By 2012, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services health care is expected to take up nearly 20 percent of the GDP. In the last five years, inflation has increased by 2.5 percent; yet, health costs are 11.5 percent higher. This discrepancy is noteworthy. Nevertheless, this is not the real reason for the current GM crisis; it is only part of a much larger problem; the problem of philosophy, policy, and practices.

GM continues to document costs as their reason for concern. Next, they turn to the cost of supporting the General Motors legacy. Granted, it is an enormous expense. However, one that a forward thinking company could have easily anticipated. Pension plans, and the disbursement of these are not unique to General Motors. Toyota incurs similar expenses. It is the cost of doing business, at least in the automotive industry.

Maintaining earlier retirees, paying on pension promises, consumed 2.3% of GM revenues in 1999. In 2005, this expense will grow; it is expected to reach a whooping 5% of company’s proceeds. General Motors recognizes this has “a tremendous impact” on profitability. Yet, in fact it does not, at least not more than a forward thinking company has prepared itself to endure. General Motors has a history of not thinking beyond the moment. They may plan for the months to come, but not further. This practice is true in many, if not most American industries and institutions.

A shortsighted company only sees expenses and ignores its assets; that is General Motors. GM claims a need to cut jobs. They plan to further eliminate their greatest asset, their laborers! They assert that they can no longer compete in the marketplace. However, I wonder whether cutting labor will truly make General Motors more competitive or merely temporarily stabilize their stock prices.

Mr. Wagoner spoke of creating “a chance to be successful.” General Motors believes success comes when expenses are reduced. To this end, on June 7, 2005 they announced, they “would cut more than 22 percent of its blue-collar work force in the United States, about 25,000 jobs, by the end of 2008.” They say this is “the most sweeping single job cut announced since 1992, though GM has already eliminated nearly 30,000 hourly and salaried workers over the last five years.”

Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner believes his new cost-cutting plan would produce annual savings of $2.5 billion once it is fully put into effect. He does not seem to recognize that the idea of reducing the labor force has long been in effect and has long been ineffective!

The history of General Motors vividly illustrates that success is not found in a “distinctive product.” Reductions do not ensure success. GM has tried these techniques. They cut the workforce, lessened employee benefits, and eliminated expenses; yet, sales decline. If these earlier measures were meaningful, if they had reaped rewards, we would not have the announcement of June 7, 2005.

Clearly, the system is broken! American businesses as a whole are struggling to survive. As General Motors goes so too goes the nation, unfortunately. Industries and institutions are also feeling the pinch. Sadly, their business philosophies often parallel those of General Motors. Solutions are not simple; nor can they be shortsighted. Business continue to do as they have done; they cut costs, continually, and never realize this is not the cure for what ails them.

As Einstein mused, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.”

The GM market view and by extension the perspective of many American firms is a narrow one. It has created what is. The cycle continues. What was once only an energy crisis is now a calamity, a catastrophe that is all consuming.

Unlike General Motors, Toyota [and a few other firms] has adopted a different model, one that is not singular in focus, or dependant on creating a [false] market. The model that Toyota uses is commendable and well documented. One would hope that rather than continue to make excuses, General Motors, and thus the nation, might choose to consider the extraordinary success of Japanese manufacturers such as Toyota. Possibly, Americans might think to embrace this model.

First and foremost, the foundation for Japanese manufacturers is a belief in long-term thinking. They plan for the future rather than choosing to go-with-the-flow.

Toyota produces vehicles of quality, they last longer, require less service, and are as the consumers crave. Unlike American industries, the Japanese make what the people want. In America, industry dictates the market. The thought is “build it and they will come.” Here, the manufacturer produces and then sells the product through persuasive advertising. They do not listen to the people or ask of their desires. In contrast, Japanese industry focuses on the customers’ desires.

For Toyota, satisfying the customer will gratify all else. Toyota believes as American industries once professed to, “a satisfied customer comes back.” More and more business is generated through referrals. A company that values its customer, society, and a shared economic welfare, is one that will not reduce labor and costs while enhancing Executive salaries and stock prices.

In Japan, it is accepted that all want wealth and quality; it is necessary that all reap the rewards of hard work, not solely the executives. Affluence is not available for the few; Japan as a whole is a very prosperous country. The distribution of wealth is more evenly balanced. The rich do not get richer while the poor become poorer. The Japanese value the principles of equity.

According to author, Jacoby, who writes of Japanese corporate governance, “Those in the bottom two-thirds of the income distribution enjoy a higher quality of life than their U.S. counterparts. As for the upper one-third, they, too, benefit from Japan’s high level of public services, as well as the security that comes from a stable, cohesive society.”

This is reflected in the principle that governs Toyota. Toyota practices a principle called kaizen, the notion that engineers, managers, and line workers collaborate continually to systematize production tasks and identify incremental changes to make work go more smoothly. All work together. Management and labor share a vision and power.

In a book title, The Toyota Way, author Jeffrey Liker articulates the guiding philosophy behind the success of Toyota is documented. Toyota believes that its’ principle philosophy must be one that honors long term thinking in deference to short term financial gains. Stock prices are not the strength of Toyota, nor do they influence business decisions!

“The Toyota message is consistent: Do the right thing for the company, its employees, the customer, and the society as a whole.” This strongly held belief is practiced consistently and continuously. The words are not merely rhetoric; they are the reality of Toyota. It is this basic principle that breeds success!

Those at Toyota realize that what brings the best to one, will provide excellence for all if everyone chooses to work together. In order to achieve success, the interest of one must be the shared interest of all. In its quest to offer the best in quality and service to its customers, employees and stockholders, Toyota considers all equally. CEOs are not more important than laborers; nor are investors.

Toyota, as a corporation acknowledges it is vital to “Develop, work, grow and align the company towards a common goal that is bigger than making money. Your philosophical mission is and should be the foundation of all your other principles.” Yet, this is not the path at General Motors. For GM, making money is their first, and possibly only true concern.

As General Motors goes, so goes the nation? I hope not. My hope is that awareness will prosper and that American businesses will see that success does not come with shortsightedness. I hope that soon they will realize that what may seem an expense, the cost of creating a unified workforce, is actually, the greatest asset. The importance of healthy and happy employees is equal in importance to that of entrepreneurial gains.